Dodd/Kucinich 08': Election Blu-Galoo

[elpollodiablo]

what are you talking about?

I'm talking about how saying things like "Wow he's so charismatic and likable, people will vote for him without knowing shit about what he's done/where he's coming from" makes me want to vomit in a bag and throw it at a wall

[Andrew_TSKS]

yeah, well, it's the natural state for something like 75% of the population, so that wall's gonna get pretty gnarly after a while if you actually take up that policy.

and where the other 25% of us are concerned, it's all good because barack obama's actually a better candidate on the few positions where he and hillary disagree.

[elpollodiablo]

...which they hardly ever do, as was acknowledged by both of them in last week's debate.

[elpollodiablo]

Also just cuz it's the "natural state" for lots of idiots doesn't mean it's something to smile about

[Andrew_TSKS]

true on both counts.

[jebreject]

clinton's best shots are pretty weak: I was married to the president so I'm more experienced than you; I was in the senate slightly before you were; my health care plan is more developed than yours even though it isn't.

This is a bit disingenuous though, Knucks. Especially the first one, considering that's not her argument, nor is that the case. "Married to the president" in this case = actually doing a lot of different things politically, including trying to launch a universal healthcare plan. The truth is, she is more experienced than Obama. Whether that's enough to make her a better president, well ...

[dieblucasdie]

Though "35 years of change" is wildly overstating her experience.

edit:

I mean, for example, the "experience" argument will win her no points against McCain.

[jebreject]

Though "35 years of change" is wildly overstating her experience.

edit:

I mean, for example, the "experience" argument will win her no points against McCain.

Right, I'm with you. I just think that reducing her experience to being married to the president is pretty ridiculous (and feels vaguely sexist to me as well)

[elpollodiablo]

That's because about 9/10 of the criticisms leveled against HC (here and in the major media outlets) seem vaguely sexist

[hannah]

I'd say 9.9/10 (and I'm guilty of it a million times over).

[dieblucasdie]

yeah I'm a broken record here but I'm not sure I'll able to stand the media coverage of either an Obama or Clinton candidacy without going on a killing spree.

[elpollodiablo]

Well thus far the media's been going after Obama with all the furor of a sick kitten, but still not much racial bullshit

[hannah]

Well thus far the media's been going after Obama with all the furor of a sick kitten, but still not much racial bullshit

Well... they do the religious stuff, of course, which is partly a way of going after someone with dark skin. That said, so far what racist stuff has been given a pass is often paternalistic -- and therefore on the surface flattering (Joe Biden might have gotten away with such stuff if he had called Obama "articulate" alone, and not added the "clean" part) -- rather than the overtly misogynist terms like the ones used by Maureen Dowd to describe Clinton. So you're right in that respect, certainly.

For fun's sake, from a letter to the NYT:

Here are the words [Dowd] uses in association with Senator Clinton: “desperate,” “primal scream,” “clanging,” “churlish,” “discombobulated,” “gloomy,” “flipping,” “begrudging,” “whining,” “experience,” “pea green with envy,” “Sybil,” “cascading,” “dizzying,” “unsettling,” “struggling,” “tartly,” “peevishly,” “pointlessly,” “sarcasm.”

Gah.

[hannah]

I said "stuff" a lot above. I think I should go make another guinea pig movie.

[auto-da-fey]

I said "stuff" a lot above. I think I should go make another guinea pig movie.

You should, but be sure not to let Charlie Sheen see it.

[Thermofusion]

from http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL29354901.html

Kenyan elders may impose a fine on U.S. presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, payable in livestock, after a photo of her rival Barack Obama in robes dragged their people into the race for the White House.

awesome.

Best. Election.  Ever.

That's because about 9/10 of the criticisms leveled against HC (here and in the major media outlets) seem vaguely sexist

And about 9/10 of die hard Clinton supporters like yourself counter justifiably vitriolic, negative reactions to the reprehensible nature of her campaign with half-baked accusations of "sexism". 

(see, I can supply dubiously aggregated bullshit statistics, too)

[elpollodiablo]

from http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL29354901.html

Kenyan elders may impose a fine on U.S. presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, payable in livestock, after a photo of her rival Barack Obama in robes dragged their people into the race for the White House.

awesome.

Best. Election.  Ever.

That's because about 9/10 of the criticisms leveled against HC (here and in the major media outlets) seem vaguely sexist

And about 9/10 of die hard Clinton supporters like yourself counter justifiably vitriolic, negative reactions to the reprehensible nature of her campaign with half-baked accusations of "sexism". 

(see, I can supply dubiously aggregated bullshit statistics, too)

If you'll take the time to look upthread, you'll see that I've ceded the fact that her campaign is indefensible at this point. Excuse my use of a "dubiously aggregated bullshit statistic." Rest assured I'll be working diligently to come to an accurate and methodically calculated percentage of perceived sexism w/r/t HC in the media.

*edited for unnecessary vitriol, my bad

It's not like you said something bad about Obama or anything

[DCDave]

Let's talk about how Clinton's imitations of Obama border on minstrelry instead.

[elpollodiablo]

Oh fucking PLEASE

[Thermofusion]

For the record, I was defending LPTJ peeps, whom you lumped in with the media for whatever reason.  You can shit all over the media for all I care, it's not like they don't deserve it

[elpollodiablo]

Well when LPTJ peeps want to spout asinine bullshit like "Way to cry for votes, you big girl, har har" and "Just cuz you were the little woman around the White House doesn't make you ready for the big chair AMIRITE" I will continue to point out that it is asinine bullshit, what they're spouting

[dieblucasdie]

Has anyone done that other than FK and Dave though?

I mean, everyone already knows they're jerks.  

For the record though, I agree with you that Obama hasn't been hit as hard with the racism action yet, but it's definitely ramped up since it's starting to look like he may win, and you'd best believe it's going to be fucking nuts if he's the nominee.

 "Hey, let's make him denounce a black militant in the debates just 'cuz" annoys the hell outta me, but you're right, nothing compared to cavalier way even otherwise intelligent people have no problem telling you every three seconds what a bitch they think Hillary is, let alone that whole C.U.N.T. nonsense. 

[DCDave]

I don't recall ever levying a complaint against Hilary based on Gender.

[RavingLunatic]

Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget: you can't think that this one isn't on the table for clinton and obama, both of whom have made bringing the troops in iraq home a big part of their campaign platforms. i realize nader is probably talking about deeper cuts in the budget than obama and clinton are, but again, i don't think that's necessarily realistic at this juncture. i'd like to see a reduction in foreign bases that i see as overcommitment of troops in situations that no longer have any real purpose (after all, the soviet union is gone, and so is east germany). but i'm not ron paul, and i don't think we should shutter every foreign base tomorrow. i don't know where nader is on that issue, but i have my doubts that what he's talking about with this point is the same as obama/clinton want, or that the majority of the country wants. but make no mistake, if a democrat is elected, we'll see a reduction in military spending within a year or two.

You really think so?  I mean, both Obama and Hillary want to increase the size of our military by 90,000-100,000 troops, and I haven't heard either of them talk about cuts in military spending and this is the primary season. Seems to me like they're pretty much trying to out-tough each other on this issue, and things'll only get worse come general election time.

Troops don't cost as much as capital military expenditures do.  Salary for 90,000 troops is cheaper than a dozen F-22s or refitting a few aircraft carriers.   It's also more economically redistributive, and better for the work force as a whole.

True, but I haven't heard either of them say anything about cutting wasteful military contracts either. The bigger question to me is why do they think we need 90,000 more troops? What exactly are they planning? An invasion of Venezuela? All this militarism just disturbs me.

How successful have the last few U.N. peacekeeping missions been?  Have we had the troops needed to support the Sudanese peacekeeping effort?  What about Liberia? 

You really think that's what they're advocating troop increases for? Peacekeeping missions? Besides, they're supposedly gonna get us out of Iraq, in which case we should have 100,000 troops to distribute in peacekeeping missions as much as you like, not that the US has any legitimacy whatsoever at this point.

[RavingLunatic]

clinton's best shots are pretty weak: I was married to the president so I'm more experienced than you; I was in the senate slightly before you were; my health care plan is more developed than yours even though it isn't.

This is a bit disingenuous though, Knucks. Especially the first one, considering that's not her argument, nor is that the case. "Married to the president" in this case = actually doing a lot of different things politically, including trying to launch a universal healthcare plan. The truth is, she is more experienced than Obama. Whether that's enough to make her a better president, well ...

As far as I'm concerned, political experience is to be counted against a candidate. I mean, everyone's talking about how we need change, so why should experience be counted as a positive? I mean, it's pretty common knowledge that the way most politicians operate is pretty shady, so why would anyone want to show off about how accustomed they've become to dealing in the crooked ways that all beltway politicians do?